What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The academic side of scholarship offers - CU 2nd most rigorous in Pac-12

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Sometimes, when we're wondering why a certain player is being "slow played" it is about academics rather than being about athletics. Actually, this is often the case.

NCAA requires 16 core units with 10 of them completed before the start of the 7th semester (end of junior year). Then, the athlete has to have a "corresponding test score" on the ACT or SAT that is a sliding scale. The lower the GPA in these core courses, the higher the test score needs to be. Often, CU will need to wait to see how a prospect does in his spring semester or even summer school between junior & senior years before offering. Also, even with that, CU will not bring someone to campus for an official visit until he has also gotten his corresponding test score.

Because of this requirement, official written offers can't go out until the start of that 7th semester (senior year). Also, many of the guys who have early offers are guys with great academics. For example, CU verbally offered Andrew Gentry of Columbine this week despite him being a sophomore. A big reason for that early offer is that he has a 4.4 GPA and there are no concerns about him being able to be admitted based on what he has already accomplished in the classroom.

Beyond all that with the minimums, a school often has its own minimums that may be higher than the NCAA Clearinghouse minimum. This has a huge impact on why some players end up getting offers or being recruited by one school and not by CU. We rarely know about this because prospects don't generally make their transcript info public.

Here's what that minimum core from the NCAA Clearninghouse looks like compared to what the minimum is at each Pac-12 school (of note, some of the schools have additional "Recommended" but not "Required", which allows some flexibility on admissions):

InstitutionEnglishMathScienceSocial ScienceAdditional Eng/Mth/SciAdditional Any of Previous or Foreign Language or Philosophy/ReligionTOTAL
NCAA43212416
Arizona4431n/a2 (foreign language)14
Arizona State4431n/a2 (foreign language), 1 (history)15
Cal443n/an/a2 (foreign language), 2 (history), 1 (elective core)16
Colorado4433n/a3 (foreign language)17
Oregon4333n/a2 (foreign language)15
Oregon State4333n/a2 (foreign language)15
Stanford4433n/a3 (foreign language), 3 (history)20
UCLA432n/an/a2 (foreign language), 2 (history), 1 (elective core)16
USC4322n/a2 (foreign language), 3 (elective core)16
Utah423n/an/a2 (foreign language), 1 (history), 4 (elective core)16
Washington4323n/a2 (foreign language), 1 (elective core)15
Washington State4323n/a2 (foreign language)14
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Whatever the core requirement at a school may be, the prospective student-athlete must meet the NCAA Clearinghouse minimum.

But what this reveals is that Colorado is the second toughest Pac-12 school to recruit to on academics after Stanford. And there's less flexibility at CU than at some other peers that have elective academic requirements instead of all credits being specific to core areas.

I don't think that the academic requirements at CU being so high relative to some Pac-12 peers (generally great schools with great reputations) is a thing most people are aware of.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf
https://www.collegedata.com/
 
Last edited:
Sometimes, when we're wondering why a certain player is being "slow played" it is about academics rather than being about athletics. Actually, this is often the case.

NCAA requires 16 core units with 10 of them completed before the start of the 7th semester (end of junior year). Then, the athlete has to have a "corresponding test score" on the ACT or SAT that is a sliding scale. The lower the GPA in these core courses, the higher the test score needs to be. Often, CU will need to wait to see how a prospect does in his spring semester or even summer school between junior & senior years before offering. Also, even with that, CU will not bring someone to campus for an official visit until he has also gotten his corresponding test score.

Because of this requirement, official written offers can't go out until the start of that 7th semester (senior year). Also, many of the guys who have early offers are guys with great academics. For example, CU verbally offered Andrew Gentry of Columbine this week despite him being a sophomore. A big reason for that early offer is that he has a 4.4 GPA and there are no concerns about him being able to be admitted based on what he has already accomplished in the classroom.

Beyond all that with the minimums, a school often has its own minimums that may be higher than the NCAA Clearinghouse minimum. This has a huge impact on why some players end up getting offers or being recruited by one school and not by CU. We rarely know about this because prospects don't generally make their transcript info public.

Here's what that minimum core from the NCAA Clearninghouse looks like compared to what the minimum is at each Pac-12 school (of note, some of the schools have additional "Recommended" but not "Required", which allows some flexibility on admissions):

InstitutionEnglishMathScienceSocial ScienceAdditional Eng/Mth/SciAdditional Any of Previous or Foreign Language or Philosophy/ReligionTOTAL
NCAA43212416
Arizona4431n/a2 (foreign language)14
Arizona State4431n/a2 (foreign language), 1 (history)15
Cal443n/an/a2 (foreign language), 2 (history), 1 (elective core)16
Colorado4433n/a3 (foreign language)17
Oregon4333n/a2 (foreign language)15
Oregon State4333n/a2 (foreign language)15
Stanford4433n/a3 (foreign language), 3 (history)20
UCLA432n/an/a2 (foreign language), 2 (history), 1 (elective core)16
USC4322n/a2 (foreign language), 3 (elective core)16
Utah423n/an/a2 (foreign language), 1 (history), 4 (elective core)16
Washington4323n/a2 (foreign language), 1 (elective core)15
Washington State4323n/a2 (foreign language)14
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Whatever the core requirement at a school may be, the prospective student-athlete must meet the NCAA Clearinghouse minimum.

But what this reveals is that Colorado is the second toughest Pac-12 school to recruit to on academics after Stanford. And there's less flexibility at CU than at some other peers that have elective academic requirements instead of all credits being specific to core areas.

I don't think that the academic requirements at CU being so high relative to some Pac-12 peers (generally great schools with great reputations) is a thing most people are aware of.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf
https://www.collegedata.com/

Interesting, I didn’t realize CU was generally hard to be accepted into.
 
The NCAA Academic Progress Report is a total joke. This whole double standard by the NCAA is why many of, for example, the SEC schools have such a huge advantage. To me, a school with higher academic standards should be rewarded somehow. Instead, they are punished. On the other hand, I’m proud of CU for having high standards.
 
The NCAA Academic Progress Report is a total joke. This whole double standard by the NCAA is why many of, for example, the SEC schools have such a huge advantage. To me, a school with higher academic standards should be rewarded somehow. Instead, they are punished. On the other hand, I’m proud of CU for having high standards.
I think it's the best system they've ever had. I don't know why you're so negative on it.

How would you improve upon this?

The APR is calculated as follows:
  • Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible.
  • A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate.
  • In addition to a team’s current-year APR, its rolling four-year APR is also used to determine accountability.
Currently, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in NCAA championships. In 2015-16 and beyond, teams must earn a four-year APR of 930 to compete in championships.

My main tweaks would probably to not penalize so heavily for a player transferring out. I'd also have a factor in there for graduation rate. I don't know how you could possibly factor for the relative academic rigor of the universities the student-athletes attend and the types of courses they are taking.
 
I think it's the best system they've ever had. I don't know why you're so negative on it.

How would you improve upon this?

The APR is calculated as follows:
  • Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible.
  • A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate.
  • In addition to a team’s current-year APR, its rolling four-year APR is also used to determine accountability.
Currently, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in NCAA championships. In 2015-16 and beyond, teams must earn a four-year APR of 930 to compete in championships.

My main tweaks would probably to not penalize so heavily for a player transferring out. I'd also have a factor in there for graduation rate. I don't know how you could possibly factor for the relative academic rigor of the universities the student-athletes attend and the types of courses they are taking.
I would weight it according to the course work. Why should a school be punished if a kid fails a thermodynamics class while another is rewarded for a guy passing some social studies class? Problem is, I don’t know how they’d implement such a system. But when one school can get some 5 star kid in who has no business being in college while another won’t even consider him for those reasons then you have a totally uneven playing field.
 
I would weight it according to the course work. Why should a school be punished if a kid fails a thermodynamics class while another is rewarded for a guy passing some social studies class? Problem is, I don’t know how they’d implement such a system. But when one school can get some 5 star kid in who has no business being in college while another won’t even consider him for those reasons then you have a totally uneven playing field.
It will never be even. Stanford is different than KSU. There are advantages and disadvantages for both of them on academics. I’m cool with a minimum NCAA admittance standard and then simple criteria for how your athletes perform in the classroom at your institution. If Stanford is a harder school, it needs to recruit better students. If a school has a poor academic rep, it isn’t able to recruit the types of kids for whom Stanford is appealing.
 
It will never be even. Stanford is different than KSU. There are advantages and disadvantages for both of them on academics. I’m cool with a minimum NCAA admittance standard and then simple criteria for how your athletes perform in the classroom at your institution. If Stanford is a harder school, it needs to recruit better students. If a school has a poor academic rep, it isn’t able to recruit the types of kids for whom Stanford is appealing.
Stanford has a niche now. They attract the very top student-athletes. I think that’s great. CU is similar but just doesn’t have the academic chops that Stanford has. Cal, from what I understand, has somewhat lowered requirements for athletes compared to the general student population. So it boils down to a particular school’s philosophy.
 
This makes a lot of sense, thanks for posting. We have lost guys in recruiting battles to Pac12 schools because of academics and yet, we still get those sillies in recruit threads who come in defending the Zona schools’ reputation for whatever reason. This should make it clear that Arizona State is a pretty good school, but that we have higher standards and now we don’t have to derail recruiting threads :)
 
I, for one, do not care that CU has higher standards, as it pertains to athletics. As a fan of the football program, all it does is limit the talent that can potentially get in the door and put CU at a disadvantage compared to other Pac 12 teams. Then again, it’s shouldn’t surprise me as CU doesn’t take football as serious as most of the other P12 programs and not even close to the rest of the college football world.
 
I, for one, do not care that CU has higher standards, as it pertains to athletics. As a fan of the football program, all it does is limit the talent that can potentially get in the door and put CU at a disadvantage compared to other Pac 12 teams. Then again, it’s shouldn’t surprise me as CU doesn’t take football as serious as most of the other P12 programs and not even close to the rest of the college football world.

Meh. I think the overall tone of this thread is largely overblown. Slightly heightened core requirements are not holding CU back from landing top players. It makes for an easy target, but not sure it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the table above, the standards are all really close.
 
Meh. I think the overall tone of this thread is largely overblown. Slightly heightened core requirements are not holding CU back from landing top players. It makes for an easy target, but not sure it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the table above, the standards are all really close.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a major recruiting hurdle, but I just have zero interest in any fake self righteousness on the academic side of things.
 
Meh. I think the overall tone of this thread is largely overblown. Slightly heightened core requirements are not holding CU back from landing top players. It makes for an easy target, but not sure it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the table above, the standards are all really close.
It holds them back more then we think. You wanna offer guys and bring them to campus early, especially when you have a lower profile relative to other schools you are recruiting against. Stanford recruits the whole country and gets the very best students/athletes. CU doesn't have the academic reputation to have such a high standard, while remaining competitive in recruiting.
 
Meh. I think the overall tone of this thread is largely overblown. Slightly heightened core requirements are not holding CU back from landing top players. It makes for an easy target, but not sure it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the table above, the standards are all really close.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make, really. As I started it was just compiling data because I'd heard some things related to B1G schools and some of the challenges they have (plus I wanted to see how much more challenging it might be for Stanford). I was then surprised that CU ended up where it did. So when we hear that academic evaluations are key with CU and that it can be challenging compared to other places, I think there is legitimacy to that. It's not in any way an excuse for sub-par recruiting. It simply means that CU's football program and athletics department need to have the organization in place to do a solid academic evaluation of a prospect beyond just whether the prospect can make it through the NCAA clearinghouse -- including some advising on junior year & pre-senior year summer school coursework. It also explains some of the apparent "slow playing" that was brought up in the local media this week.

But not any sort of reason not to recruit well. There are around 1,000 guys every year who meet CU's academic requirements and are P5 caliber players (probably 400 within our footprint). We only need to get 20 of them. But it is a bit easier for those programs that are fishing in a pond that's 10%-50% bigger.
 
It's a small sample size, but I know we've had to drop kids due to academic work when other schools were able to continue to recruit. Many Kids say no thanks to the extra work, such as a foreign language, when Nebraska is waiving that and basically guarranreeing a diploma well .
 
If a kid comes to CU and puts in the effort, he/she will be successful. Maybe CU’s standards are a bit higher, but it isn’t that hard to succeed there. The harder part is getting accepted.
 
All else being equal, I’d prefer athletes who are also really good students.
Sure. But within that, I look at it like I look at all merit scholarships. Those students are brought in because of a special ability that enhances the CU community. So, if we have a music prodigy on a CU merit scholarship I'm not going to question her being at CU if she isn't equivalent to the average CU student in certain coursework. Minimum entry requirements shouldn't be waived and all merit scholarship people at CU should be expected to pull their weight as legitimate students. But we shouldn't expect all of them to be among the top academic performers in a general sense. Some will be. Some won't. All belong at the university.
 
Also I wouldn't really declare high school GPA and a standardized test as a complete judgement of intelligence. Especially considering they spend a lot of their time focusing on sports. These are teenagers we are talking about, school was public enemy #1 when I was that age..
 
Back in Mac the Elder’s day we had more leeway in getting academically risky guys in and most of them succeeded in school. At least that is my recollection.
 
Back in Mac the Elder’s day we had more leeway in getting academically risky guys in and most of them succeeded in school. At least that is my recollection.
That was back when we had the Prop-48 / Prop-42 stuff where a player who didn't meet the NCAA Clearinghouse minimums could still get a scholarship and enroll but had to redshirt to establish himself academically for a year before playing. It wasn't the worst rule.
 
That was back when we had the Prop-48 / Prop-42 stuff where a player who didn't meet the NCAA Clearinghouse minimums could still get a scholarship and enroll but had to redshirt to establish himself academically for a year before playing. It wasn't the worst rule.
With the kind of support athletes get, a lot of underachievers could succeed in college. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for a guy or girl.
 
Back
Top